The St. Johns herald., 1887-12-01
Judge Wright'S Decision in the Tax
 Gases.

plaintiff significantly ignores that
 contract altogether-in fact, in its
 brief, it absolutely denies that there
 was any contract. And although
 defendant only seeks to collect
 taxes from plaintiff, in accordance
 with the $4,000 per mile agreement,
 the complaint asks that defendant
 be enjoined from doing that, on
 the ground that none of it's prop
 erty is liable 10 taxation in Apache
 county. True, at the trial, plain
 tiff claimed that it was not bound
 by this contract, because no author ity had been shown, that the solic- itor was authorized to make such a contract on the part of plaintiff; !;
 that the Board of Supervisors had
 no authority, on behalf of the coun- ty to contract for their successors in office, or to reduce the taxes, or to make such compromise; and
 that the assessment should have been against personal property alone. We think it sufficient an- swer to these objections to say that whether the solicitor had au- thority from plaintiff to make the compromise-contr ct at the time it was made, or not, the plaintiff rati
 fies 1t by paying the taxes for 1882, 1883 and 1884, according to its terms; that the Board of Supervi- sors, in the year 1885, adopted and ratified the contract made with plaintiff by their predecessors in 1884, and therefore the contract be- came possessed of the same virtue, as if originally made by them. As to the authority of the Board to make the compromise, plaintiff, through it's solicitor, earnestly re- commended it in June. 1885; will it be heard now to complain of that, which it, itself, instigated? For some reason the anxiety of plain tiff that the Board of Supervisors should keep within the sphere of it's legal powers, was not so ardent in February, 1884, and in June, 1885, as 1t is now. If 1t was wrong to make this compromise, plaintiff was party to it, and in fact insti- gated it; shall one be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong? But, if defendant has done wrong, 1 Is that any reason why plaintiff should not do right? Is not plain tiff somewhat inconsistent? In it's brief it says no authority was shown for the solicitor to make the com promise, but the solicitor says, in hls letters to Gutterson and Tuning that he was authorized. "Allegans non est audrendus" is an old maxim, but a true and sound one. Will party be heard to al- lege that which is contradictory? Will he be allowed to share the benefits of contract, and then es- cape it's burdens, because at his re- quest the other party has exceeded his legal powers? Can he ''blow hot and cold" with reference to the same transaction? Can he affirm or deny,as his interest may prompt? Will not court of equity say that before a person can require that an others house be kept in order, he must dust his own floors? It can not be necessary to cite a single au thority in support of the old rule of law, that where a principal sub sequently ratifies the act of the agent, whether authorized or not, that act becomes the act of the This doctrine is as old as the Roman or Civil law. No precedent authority is required only the sanction of what has been done by the agent. Again, we say: what reason does plaintiff offer for not complying with its contract? None, unless that reason can be found in the following letter, writ ten six months after the letters